2016 (9) TMI 660 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - Summon to the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C - Held that - Undisputedly, the petitioner was the Chairman and Managing Director of the company and as per the judgment in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals (2005 (9) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ), the Managing Director would be responsible for day to day affairs of the company. The argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not intervening in the day to day proceedings of the company, is of no consequence when the cheques in question were issued during the course of day to day business transactions for the benefit of the company. More the reason that in the complaint filed before the Trial Court the company had already been impleaded as one of the respondents. The only part left is that the name of Mr.Vijay Mallya as Chairman and Managing Director of the company was not added in the original complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Adding the name of Mr.Vijay Mallya during the proceedings brought forth before the Court below that he was the Chairman and Managing Director of the company which is guilty for dishonouring the cheques in question, would be covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and cannot be termed as abuse to the process of law as envisaged in Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge cannot be termed as unsustainable or illegal or abuse to the process of law and no ground is made out to set aside the same.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 & 483 of Cr.P.C. for quashing order summoning petitioner as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Common Impugned Orders:
The petitioner filed four petitions under Section 482 & 483 of Cr.P.C. to quash an order summoning him as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The summoning order was passed by the Sessions Judge after the Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the petitioner based on a complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act and IPC sections.

2. Factual Matrix and Summoning of Accused:
The complainant filed complaints against accused persons, including the petitioner, under various sections. The Magistrate allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner as an accused. The petitioner's revision petitions were dismissed by the Sessions Court, leading to the present petitions.

3. Arguments by Counsels:
Senior Advocates for both parties presented arguments. The petitioner's counsel contended that summoning requires additional evidence, notice under Section 138 was mandatory, and the application was time-barred. The respondent's counsel argued the petitioner, as Chairman, was liable, and the legal notice requirement was not absolving.

4. Legal Precedents and Interpretation:
Referring to legal precedents, the Court discussed the interpretation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court cited cases emphasizing the responsibility of directors and the sufficiency of examination in chief as evidence.

5. Responsibility of the Petitioner:
The Court analyzed the petitioner's position as Chairman and Managing Director, holding him responsible for day-to-day affairs and cheques issued by the company. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's name not being in the original complaint did not absolve him of liability.

6. Conclusion and Dismissal of Petitions:
Considering the facts and legal arguments, the Court concluded that the Trial Judge's order was valid, not illegal, and not an abuse of process. Consequently, all four petitions were dismissed, upholding the summoning of the petitioner as an accused.

This detailed analysis covers the background, legal arguments, precedents, and the Court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the petitions challenging the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C.